Subject:
|
Re: New legend is up
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:24:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2391 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.general, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > I'm sure part of the selection was because they wanted to include sets of
> > different sizes.
>
> Oh, definitely. And therein is another bag of worms. People tend to love big
> sets more than little ones-- the classics that people remember as legends
> tend to be large sets. Not as a rule, but usually. So that gives a bit of a
> push for the other nominees.
Not to disagree, but rather to offer an alternative position, I have to say
I wish they'd look to some of the _smaller_ sets as possible reissues.
Back when the Legends series was first announced, I posted a suggestion
stating this. For some of us, our fondest memories of LEGO are built on
small sets, not always the larger ones. For myself, some examples would
include the following:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/611
My very very first set.
or
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/442
My first introduction to the Classic Space series.
or
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/386
If you want a NON-violent and extremely well-designed action set that could
go for a mid-range price.
Similarly,
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/371_3
Offers one of the classic LEGO planes in a set with only 115 pieces. I flew
this plane for hours as a kid.
None of these sets has more than 135 pieces. The point being you don't need
to be a monster sized set to be considered a true classic.
> But Space legends? Battrax isn't one of the
> first few things that leaps into my head. Although, granted that I think
> it's got more appeal for "today's youth" than the Galaxy Explorer or the
> Alpha-I Rocket Base, versus things like Main Street, BSB, etc., which I
> think are still pretty marketable as is.
To be honest, I'd never heard of the 'Battrax' until this voting came about.
Any of the original classic space sets would (in my opinion) have made
better candidates. I'm sure the Galaxy Explorer has gotten more press on
LUGNET and RTL than most any other space set. Though I'm not a hard core
space nut, I am a classic space fan from the very beginning. I have several
sets from the first year they were released. I think space has gotten a raw
deal as of late from the company. I hope things improve soon.
> Combine that with the fact that people just generally prefer larger sets and
> I think Battrax kinda was at a disadvantage. Certainly I don't disagree with
> them choosing it to "test the waters", but if this is regarded as strictly a
> contest between *themes* (which it isn't by any means), then one could (I
> think) fairly argue that the Space theme was at a disadvantage.
I agree with your last statement. However, I think it was the quality not
the size of the set that sank the Battrax. Put up against classic space
sets like this:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/924
or this:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/918_1
it is simply outclassed. These were part of the line that helped make
classic space.........classic. :)
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: New legend is up
|
| (...) <snip list of sets> (...) Yes. I would agree, you don't need a large set to become a legend. I would find it a problem for the kiddies, too. (of which I am one) While the 'average' kid would scrape up ar beg for the dough of a 25 dollar set, (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: New legend is up
|
| (...) I think a problem we AFOLs have is that our judgements of "classic" and "legendary" are often confused with nostalgia. "Heritage buildings" have the same problem. I think to be truly classic or legendary a set would have to appeal to kids (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: New legend is up
|
| (...) Certainly a nice set for its time, with some nice pieces for its time (after all, inverse slopes were still something of a novelty in 1976). But only a classic "for it's time". It's not hard to see how some part substitutions and a bit of (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: New legend is up
|
| (...) sets. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't have very many set numbers memorized. I recognize 924 and 918, but the rest are a mystery. Add to that the fact that right now the guide is offline and I'm quite frustrated... But even if (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New legend is up
|
| (...) Well, point of the example wasn't to say that it's the *same* as what was offered, but that just because there's a vote doesn't mean it's the voters' "fault". IE that it's possible for TLC to give certain nominees a better/worse chance of (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jul-02, to lugnet.general)
|
87 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
